The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan has significantly curtailed the power of state authorities to impose domicile-based restrictions on admissions to veterinary colleges, affirming the autonomy of institutions under the Veterinary Council of India’s regulatory framework. This ruling clarifies that vacant state quota seats may be filled independently by colleges, provided minimum academic standards are met, setting a precedent for institutional discretion in higher education admissions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Mahatma Gandhi Veterinary College, operates under the Mehgiya Paropkari Trust and seeks to fill vacant seats in its State quota after the final round of counseling conducted by the Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (RUVAS). The university issued a circular on 28 November 2025 and an order on 6 December 2025 restricting admission to these vacant seats exclusively to candidates who qualified in the Rajasthan Pre-Veterinary Test (RPVT) 2025 and possessed Rajasthan domicile. The petitioner contends this condition violates the Veterinary Council of India - Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education in Degree Courses (B.V.Sc. & A.H.) Regulations 2016 and contradicts a prior judgment of this Court.
Procedural History
- 2019: This Court, in Aravali Veterinary College, Sikar v. Rajasthan University of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, held that institutions may fill vacant seats independently under Clause 9 of Regulation 7 of the VCI Regulations 2016, without requiring university approval.
- 2026: RUVAS issued the impugned circular and order imposing domicile-based eligibility.
- 2026: The petitioner filed this writ petition, citing Aravali Veterinary College and an interim order passed in Shekhawati Veterinary College v. Veterinary Council of India on 16 February 2026, which granted similar relief to another institution.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks quashing of the circular and order, and permission to admit eligible candidates - regardless of domicile - to vacant State quota seats, subject only to minimum qualifying marks.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Regulation 7, Clause 9 of the Veterinary Council of India Regulations 2016 permits state universities to impose domicile-based eligibility criteria for filling vacant state quota seats in veterinary colleges, or whether institutions retain autonomous authority to admit candidates without such restrictions.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Aravali Veterinary College to argue that Clause 9 of Regulation 7 grants veterinary institutions the independent power to admit students against vacant seats after counseling. It further contended that imposing domicile requirements violates the regulatory autonomy granted under the VCI framework and is inconsistent with the national character of professional education. The interim order in Shekhawati Veterinary College was cited as binding precedent on identical facts.
For the Respondent
The State and University contended that domicile requirements are necessary to ensure equitable access to state-funded seats for local candidates and to fulfill the policy objective of regional representation in veterinary education. They argued that the VCI Regulations do not override state-level admission policies and that the university, as the controlling authority, retains discretion to regulate admissions under its statutory mandate.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the language and intent of Clause 9 of Regulation 7 of the VCI Regulations 2016, which states: "The Veterinary Institutions may fill up the vacant seats left after the counseling process conducted by the competent authority, subject to the minimum qualifying marks prescribed by the Council." The Court held that this provision confers autonomous authority on institutions to fill vacancies without requiring prior approval or imposing additional eligibility conditions such as domicile.
"The regulatory framework established by the Veterinary Council of India is designed to ensure uniformity and autonomy in professional education standards across States. To impose a domicile condition is to subvert the very purpose of Clause 9, which empowers institutions to act independently after the centralized counseling process."
The Court distinguished the State’s policy argument from the binding regulatory text, noting that while states may frame admission policies, they cannot override specific statutory regulations governing professional education. The Court further affirmed that its earlier interim order in Shekhawati Veterinary College was not merely discretionary but a correct interpretation of the law, and therefore binding in principle.
The Court rejected the argument that state funding justifies domicile restrictions, emphasizing that the VCI Regulations are statutory instruments with overriding effect under the Veterinary Council of India Act, 1984. The institution’s autonomy under Clause 9 is not contingent on the source of funding but on the regulatory structure.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that Regulation 7, Clause 9 of the VCI Regulations 2016 permits veterinary institutions to fill vacant State quota seats without imposing domicile-based eligibility criteria. The impugned circular and order were stayed, and the petitioner was permitted to admit eligible candidates based on RPVT qualification and minimum marks, with preference given to those already offered seats through counseling.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Institutional Autonomy Under VCI Regulations Prevails
- Practitioners representing veterinary colleges may now invoke Clause 9 of Regulation 7 to challenge any state-imposed admission restrictions beyond minimum qualifying marks.
- Domicile requirements for filling vacant state quota seats in professional courses are now legally untenable where a national regulatory body has granted autonomous admission powers.
Interim Orders Can Establish Binding Precedent in Identical Contexts
- The Court’s reliance on its own interim order in Shekhawati Veterinary College signals that consistent interim relief on identical legal issues may form the basis for final adjudication.
- Institutions facing similar restrictions should promptly seek interim stays and cite prior favorable interim orders to strengthen their position.
Minimum Qualifying Marks Are the Only Legally Permissible Filter
- Colleges may not impose additional eligibility criteria such as domicile, caste, or institutional preference.
- Admissions must be based solely on: (1) qualification in the prescribed entrance test, and (2) meeting minimum marks set by the VCI.
- Any further condition risks being struck down as ultra vires the VCI Regulations.
